Birgul Yilmaz Language Ideologies and Identities in Kurdish Heritage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Sociology of Language 2018 (253:286) Birgul Yilmaz Language ideologies and identities in Kurdish heritage language classrooms in London Abstract This article investigates the way that Kurdish language learners construct discourses around identity in two language schools in London. It focuses on the values that heritage language learners of Kurdish-Kurmanji attribute to the Kurmanji spoken in the Bohtan and Maraş regions of Turkey. Kurmanji is one of the varieties of Kurdish that is spoken mainly in Turkey and Syria. The article explores the way that learners perceive the language from the Bohtan region to be ‘good Kurmanji’, in contrast to the ‘bad Kurmanji’ from the Maraş region. Drawing on ethnographic data collected from community-based Kurdish-Kurmanji heritage language classes for adults in South and East London, I illustrate how distinctive lexical and phonological features such as the sounds [a:] ~ [ɔ:] and [ɛ]/ [æ] ~ [a:] are associated with regional (and religious) identities of the learners. I investigate how these distinct features emerge in participants’ discourses as distinctive identity markers. Using the model developed by Irvine and Gal (2000), this paper examines how language learners construct, negotiate and resist language ideologies in the classroom. KEYWORDS: Language learning, language ideologies, identities and Kurdish Corresponding author: Birgul Yilmaz | SOAS University of London, United Kingdom Email: [email protected] 1 International Journal of Sociology of Language 2018 (253:286) 1 Introduction This article examines the language ideologies among heritage language learners (HLL) of Kurdish-Kurmanji1 that emerged in two community-based classrooms in London. The data in this article draws on 18 months of classroom observations and semi structured interviews carried out between 2011 and 2013 among the Kurdish community in London. Two varieties of Kurmanji emerged in participants’ metalinguistic interpretations as salient for analysis: Bohtan2 Kurmanji, often described as ‘proper’, and Maraş3 Kurmanji, usually characterised as ‘not proper’. The Bohtan region covers the Kurdish populated cities located in southeast Turkey, and Maraş is a town in the southern part of Turkey. The terms Maraş and Bohtan not only refer to place of origin – two different geographical locations – but also, very importantly, mark the division between Sunni4 and Alevi5 Kurds. The target language of the classroom was ‘academic’ Kurdish, which is associated with Bohtan Kurmanji; however, most learners spoke Maraş Kurmanji. The dichotomy between the two varieties emerges in the classroom setting. This article first outlines the historical context of language development and policy that helps to explain why the Bohtan region’s Kurmanji is often perceived as ‘authentic’, ‘academic’ or standard by the participants. The article then draws from the theoretical literature on language ideologies 1 Most literature uses this term; however, in the context of this paper, participants used the terms Maraş and Bohtan Kürtçesi (in Turkish) which translate as Kurdish of Maraş and Kurdish of Bohtan. NB Maraş is the name of city however, the Kurmanji of the surrounding areas such as Sivas and Malatya are also categorised as Maraş Kürtçesi by the participants. 2Öpengin and Haig (2014) use the term Northwestern dialect region (NWK) which corresponds to the Kurmaji spoken in Kahraman Maraş (Maraş), Malatya and Sivas. Also, Özsoy and Türkyılmaz (2006) use the term ‘Sinemili’ which again corresponds to Maraş Kurmanji. Participants used the term ‘Maraş Kürtçesi’ however, in order to avoid confusion I will use Maraş Kurmanji. Also I use IPA symbols as opposed to the transcript conventions in Öpengin and Haig (2014) ž=ʒ š=ʃ 3This is the official name of Maraş. Most people prefer Maraş instead of Kahramanmaraş. Kahraman, which means ‘hero’, was added to Maraş after the city’s resistance in the Turkish War of Independence in the 1920s. 4Most Muslims in Turkey belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. Alevis and Sunnis see each other as the ‘other’ and intermarriage is still discouraged to this day. Although marriage between an Alevi Turk and a Kurd is acceptable, it is still perceived negatively to marry Sunni Kurds or Turks (Geaves 2003) 5Alevism is a common faith/ cultural system in central Anatolia, and the majority of Kurds in the UK come from this particular region in Turkey (Geaves 2003). The areas comprise Malatya, Maraş and Sivas and Maraş Kürtçesi is often associated with these cities. 2 International Journal of Sociology of Language 2018 (253:286) (Irvine and Gal 2000; Piller 2015), standard language ideologies (Milroy and Milroy 1985), identities as products of hegemonic practices (Benwell and Stokoe 2006; Gramsci 1971; Althusser 1971; Foucault 1972) and phonological variation as expressions of social affiliation (Bell 1984; Hudson 1996) to explore the discourses that emerge from language learning, and the ways in which language ideologies are constructed, negotiated and resisted in the classroom. The heritage language learners (Hornberger and Wang 2008) in this study speak Kurmanji to various degrees of fluency and attend language classes in order to improve their Kurmanji literacy skills. Heritage language learners in this study were mostly activists, and they gave four reasons for learning Kurmanji in London: they want to learn their language (predominantly as literacy) because they were unable to gain literacy skills due to the oppression in Turkey; they want to rid themselves of the linguistic experiences that made them feel powerless; they want to reconnect with their past; they feel pressure in the UK ‘to know their language’, as language is seen as an important part of ethnic identity in the western world (Yilmaz 2016) As noted by O’Rourke et al. (2015: 14), in “minority language contexts, new speakers often take on an activist role, showing a strong sense of responsibility towards ensuring the future survival of the language, as well as a clear commitment to what they perceive as a situation of social and political injustice”. However, the process of teaching and learning a heritage language raises questions over which variant should be taught and whose language is the ‘standard’, and thus “complex identity and language ideological issues […] are raised about the legitimacy, authority and authenticity” (Jaffe 2015:21) of language learners. Heritage language learners therefore “not only find themselves frequently in sites of 3 International Journal of Sociology of Language 2018 (253:286) contestation of the dominant language (English) and their HL, but also needing to negotiate the use of the HL in its standard or dialect forms” (Hornberger and Wang 2008:4). Although the sociolinguistic situation of Kurdish as a heritage language has been studied in the United States (Sheyholislami and Sharifi 2016), Kurdish- Kurmanji has barely captured sociolinguists’ attention in the UK. Demir (2012:815) argues that even though Kurds from Turkey “make up a significant proportion of London's ethnic minority population, they constitute an ‘invisible’ diasporic community”. Most Kurds are registered according to the citizenship they hold and are therefore registered as Turkish, Iranian or Iraqi citizens, making it difficult to estimate their actual numbers. The lack of empirical work on the sociolinguistic situation of Kurmanji has been primarily due to constitutional obstacles. The article 42 of the constitution of the Republic of Turkey states that No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education. Foreign languages to be taught in institutions of training and education rules to be followed by schools conducting training in education in a foreign language shall be determined by law. The provisions of international treaties are reserved. Article 42, The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. Although Turkey’s constitution still does not recognise Kurds as a distinct ethnic minority and Kurdish language demands have been interpreted as “separatism” and even “terrorism”, there have been substantial changes in the AKP (Ak Parti/ Justice and Development Party, a conservative party founded in 2001 and came to power since 2002) government’s attitudes towards the Kurdish issue and education in the Kurdish mother tongue. However, Article 3 of Turkey's constitution still affirms that “The language of the country is Turkish and there can be no changes made to this article”6. This law brings certain contradictions to Turkey’s politics on Kurdish language and other minority languages and therefore limits the empirical work on the Kurdish language. 6 Speaking Kurdish in Turkey http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival- quarterly/turkey/speaking-kurdish-turkey (accessed 8 May 2015) 4 International Journal of Sociology of Language 2018 (253:286) Kurmanji lacks official recognition and institutional support in the UK and is considered neither a minority nor an immigrant language. While local governments do provide correspondence, information and translation services in Kurmanji and Sorani (a variety spoken mainly in Iraq and Iran), many participants in the present study stated that they cannot use these services since they lack literacy skills in Kurmanji. 2 History of Kurmanji and language use Kurmanji, like any other language, comprises many regional varieties. However, studies on its variation are scarce. Although there are many